Fact Check: "Trump's military strikes without Congress approval are now routine."
What We Know
The claim that "Trump's military strikes without Congress approval are now routine" reflects a broader trend in U.S. presidential military action. Historically, U.S. presidents have increasingly engaged in military operations without seeking explicit congressional approval. This trend has been noted by experts, who argue that while the president's power is not absolute, Congress has often acquiesced to these actions. For instance, John Bellinger, a senior fellow for international and national security law, remarked that "presidents over the last 25 years have certainly been stretching the envelope of presidential authority to use force" (NBC News).
In the case of Trump's recent strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, the immediate response from Congress was divided. While some Republicans praised the action, many Democrats criticized it as unconstitutional, arguing that Trump should have sought congressional authorization (AP News). This reflects a long-standing debate over the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which was designed to limit presidential military action without congressional consent but has often been circumvented (NBC News).
Analysis
The assertion that Trump's military strikes without congressional approval are now routine can be assessed through the lens of historical precedent and recent events. Trump's actions are part of a pattern where presidents, regardless of party affiliation, have engaged in military actions without prior congressional approval. For example, both President Obama and President Biden have conducted military strikes without seeking congressional authorization, which has contributed to the normalization of such actions (NBC News).
Critics of Trump's strikes, including Democratic leaders, have argued that his unilateral decision-making undermines the constitutional authority of Congress to declare war. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer stated that "no president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war" (AP News). This sentiment is echoed by various lawmakers who have called for a more robust congressional role in military decisions.
However, the reliability of the sources discussing this issue varies. While mainstream news outlets like NBC and AP provide comprehensive coverage, they may also reflect the biases of their political leanings. For instance, the framing of Trump's actions as "routine" may resonate more with critics of his presidency, potentially overlooking the historical context of presidential military authority.
Conclusion
The claim that "Trump's military strikes without Congress approval are now routine" is Partially True. While it accurately reflects a trend of increasing presidential military action without congressional approval, it does not fully capture the nuances of the ongoing debate surrounding this issue. The normalization of such actions is indeed a concern among many lawmakers, but it is also a continuation of a practice that has been observed across multiple administrations. Thus, while Trump's actions fit within this broader pattern, they also reignite significant constitutional and political discussions about the limits of executive power.
Sources
- Congressman Veasey On Trump's Decision to Strike Iran to Boost His Political Standing. Link
- Trump ignites debate on presidential authority with Iran strikes. Link
- Presidents' ordering military action without Congress approval become routine. Link
- Legality of Trump Iran strikes questioned by some lawmakers. Link
